Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:16 PM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,952,231 times
Reputation: 7458

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
It is unconstitutional, as there is no important governmental interest that would sanction prohibiting expression.
LOL, no what's unconstitutional is almost everything your boss is doing in the White House. An ordinance prohibiting thuglets from forcing the rest of us to look at their ugly, unclean, sweaty aszcracks is not unconstitutional.

Let's review:

CONSTITUTIONAL = reasonable restrictions on public conduct like this ordinance

UNCONSTITUTIONAL = forcing people to purchase insurance, data-mining the entire country's telephone metadata, wiretapping the AP's phone lines; swearing out an affidavit about James Rosen that says he's a criminal co-conspirator; running automatic weapons to the leaders of Mexican drug cartels; using the IRS to target people because of their political opinions; and almost anything else Barack Obama and Eric Holder do.

Are we clear yet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:18 PM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,952,231 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Private places can post "no shirt, no service" signs. The constitution, except for the 13th Amendment, is a limitation on government. There is a 1st Amendment too, but that doesn't stop your mother from demanding that you shut up.

The government in an effort to restrict speech rights must have a compelling governmental interest.
I find it hilarious that you claim the constitution limits government power in this regard, yet you have never one time uttered a word of criticism for the federal government and its absolute TRASHING of the Constitutional limitations you're talking about.

I guess when your guy does it, it's OK.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:40 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,126,416 times
Reputation: 4228
Are they gonna ban cleavage for women??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:40 PM
 
73,009 posts, read 62,598,043 times
Reputation: 21929
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Your thoughts? unconstitutional ?
As much as I would love to see sagging pants banned, it is unconstitutional. People have the right to wear them. I just hate that style.

If the sagging borders on indecent exposure(exposing undergarments), then I would not mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:42 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,126,416 times
Reputation: 4228
If they're claiming indecent exposure that should include women too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:43 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 2,071,798 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
It is unconstitutional, as there is no important governmental interest that would sanction prohibiting expression.
I don't think this is much different than a law banning nudity.

The only travesty here is that such a law is even necessary in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:44 PM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,666,331 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
LOL, no what's unconstitutional is almost everything your boss is doing in the White House. An ordinance prohibiting thuglets from forcing the rest of us to look at their ugly, unclean, sweaty aszcracks is not unconstitutional.

Let's review:

CONSTITUTIONAL = reasonable restrictions on public conduct like this ordinance

UNCONSTITUTIONAL = forcing people to purchase insurance, data-mining the entire country's telephone metadata, wiretapping the AP's phone lines; swearing out an affidavit about James Rosen that says he's a criminal co-conspirator; running automatic weapons to the leaders of Mexican drug cartels; using the IRS to target people because of their political opinions; and almost anything else Barack Obama and Eric Holder do.

Are we clear yet?
I assume you think a federal law where everyone dresses the same would work & penalize anyone who disobeys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:45 PM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,666,331 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
I don't think this is much different than a law banning nudity.

The only travesty here is that such a law is even necessary in the first place.
You don't make sense.

Apples & Oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:45 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,450,045 times
Reputation: 4243
Does anyone want to address why there are dress codes in PUBLIC court rooms? Any takers? Is that also unconstitutional in your eyes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:47 PM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,666,331 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Does anyone want to address why there are dress codes in PUBLIC court rooms? Any takers? Is that also unconstitutional in your eyes?
Courtrooms are government buildings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top